Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Newsite

Zombrex wrote: »

If God appeared before you and said go rape someone saying Well I learnt in Sunday school that God doesn't want me to rape people would probably mean very little to the all powerful creator of the universe.

Except, that as pointed out, we would know that it wasn't God, because it would be wholly inconsistent.

philologos

What Zombrex seems to be probing at is the Euthyphro Dilemma which is what Michael Nugent (chair of Atheist Ireland) has also been playing with on the A&A section. It's taken from Plato's Euthyphro's dilemma.

The original and modified forms are as follows:

Original:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

Modified:

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

My answer is that God commands what He determines is best for us. I think it works in both directions.

What is moral is commanded by God because it is good, and what is good is morally good because it is commanded by God. Both are true. God created us, He created the universe. He knows how all things work, that's why He commanded us the way that He did. If the universe differed, and if we differed perhaps God would have commanded differently who knows.

The reality is that we engage with the universe as it is, and God in terms of how He was revealed to me. Arguing about a-hypothetical-god-concept-that-differs-from-the-revealed-concept is pointless in terms of discussing Christianity.

Soul Winner

Its a waste of time arguing with Zombierex. He/She is obviously incapable of understanding what is being asked of him/her so I would just ignore him/her. You don't even see any of the other atheists associating with his points which speaks volumes.

recedite

philologos wrote: »

It's not "they would judge God wouldn't do that". Biblically He wouldn't, it's inconsistent with Christianity.

The Bible and consistency mentioned in the same sentence

If you're going to discuss Christianity, then we're going to need to pluck out the Bible to focus on the logic we need to work within. If you're not up for that and want to talk about a hypothetical god-concept that contradicts Christianity, that's a different discussion as far as I can see it and not one that many Christians will be interested in engaging with.....

Zombrex has quoted extensively from the Bible already, but each time the response can be summarised as "Yeah, but that bit doesn't count" or "its out of context" or "that bit has been superseded by this bit"

For example;

Zombrex wrote: »

Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?

The question for you Christians is this;
Do you, or do you not, believe that Deuteronomy 21 is the word of God?

Poring over the bible and plucking out passages which completely contradict each other, and/or fall far short of modern standards of morality, is much too tiresome for most atheists. Zombrex has the patience of a saint.

philologos

You may take her as your wife, does not mean rape. I hate to break it to you, but you're injecting your own assumptions into the passage if you take that from that term.

I believe the entire Bible is God's word, revealed in stages from beginning to end.

Until Zombrex clarifies what he's actually arguing, I consider it as a potential waste of time. I've asked him to do this three times now. Unless we clearly state what it is, I don't know what I'm really discussing. That's really not a fair discussion in any reasonable persons eyes.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

The Bible and consistency mentioned in the same sentence

I love this idea that a smiley face somehow makes muppetry acceptable.

Zombrex has quoted extensively from the Bible already, but each time the response can be summarised as "Yeah, but that bit doesn't count" or "its out of context" or "that bit has been superseded by this bit"

True, but it's hardly our fault that Zombrex (either willfully or out of ignorance) chooses to quote stuff out of context or by ignoring the rather obvious fact that he is in a Christianity Forum, and Christians do believe that the Old Testament must be read in the light of the New Testament.

If you don't like that, then you're probably in the wrong forum - this one is for discussing Christian Beliefs, not some other kind of beliefs that would result if theists somehow interpreted the bible in a way that would best suit atheists.

The question for you Christians is this;
Do you, or do you not, believe that Deuteronomy 21 is the word of God?

Yes we do. And as such we believe that it was part of the instructions God gave the Israelites, therefore it is of great historical interest to us, and we engage with what it actually says (rather than what Zombrex would like it to say).

Poring over the bible and plucking out passages which completely contradict each other, and/or fall far short of modern standards of morality, is much too tiresome for most atheists. Zombrex has the patience of a saint.

I wouldn't define 'having the patience of a saint' as meaning 'sticking your fingers in your ears, then redefining language to suit yourself'. I think other posters have the patience of a saint in continuing to engage with Zombrex.

Zombrex

Newsite wrote: »

Except, that as pointed out, we would know that it wasn't God, because it would be wholly inconsistent.

Inconsistent with what exactly

(I say exactly because I will imagine your first instinct will be to say "God", where as I want you to think carefully about what that means)

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

You have been asked before, to point out where exactly God commanded 'rape' - you have not done so...but you base your arguement on the idea that he has!!!

Whether or not God has commanded Christians to rape people is not important to the argument and what is being asked.

If you think it is you aren't reading the posts properly.

The question is not did God order anyone to rape anyone.

The question is whether God is the source of all morality so that if he did order this it would be just and right and you would follow it.

"Rape" is being used as an example not because it is in the Old Testament (I believe it is but it is not central to the question for you to think it is) but because rape is universally (in the Western world at least) considered immoral and unjustifiable no matter what the circumstances.

lmaopml wrote: »

Your approach is in my opinion lazy Zombrex

Well frankly Imaopml I'm bothering to read your posts properly and you aren't bothering to read mine (perhaps on purpose, perhaps out of laziness I don't know), so calling me lazy probably isn't the best idea :pac:

philologos

Zombrex: I and others have asked you to clarify what you're arguing. You've consistently failed to do so. Your argument is confused as far as I see it, and until you clarify what you're saying as has been asked of you, there isn't very much we can discuss.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Whether or not God has commanded Christians to rape people is not important to the argument and what is being asked.

If you think it is you aren't reading the posts properly.

The question is not did God order anyone to rape anyone.

The question is whether God is the source of all morality so that if he did order this it would be just and right and you would follow it.

You have been answered on this different question by several people. I will repost my answer below. But you are switching the issue to a different question.
The question is about your recurrent theme of rape and murder which you have posted in several threads and when called on it you switch to a different argument. Her it is as posted in another thread ( the "attitudes to sex" one) by someone else

Zombrex: I'm going to argue for calming things down on this thread. I want you to stop and clarify what you are arguing, then if we could start afresh based on what clarifications you make that'd be great.

1) God commands rape in the Bible - If this is your argument, I think everyone is reasonable in expecting you to go systematically through what passages you happen to think condone rape.

2) If God commanded someone to rape, then it would be moral to rape - as a hypothetical - If this is what you are arguing, it's flawed. The Christian position is that Jesus Christ forms the final revelation, and that all prophesy and all further teaching must be consistent with the revelation that He gave us (see Hebrews 1:1-2:4). Any teaching which contradicts what has already gone can't be considered as Christian.

So if 1 is false, and you attempt to argue 2 this contradicts the character of God that has already been revealed and as a result cannot be considered as Christianity. You can't argue both.

Is this a fair proposal to you or are you going to suggest alternative arguments to the two I have listed? If so, I want you to explain clearly as to what that argument is.

You fail to answer the following and then appear in another thread here or in humanities or in A&A rehearsing your "rape and murder" argument.

I do agree with you that there is another argument about whether absolute morals or natural law exists but again you seem to "pick and mix" according to whereever you enter into the debate. For example you appeal to the absolute of natural law below where you say it is universally accepted that rape is wrong.
Elsewher you will happily say you don't believe in absolute morals which are always wrong and that it is defendant on the views of the society of the day or the subjective personal opinions of an individual. Then when faced with individuals not being dependable and the question of what is your source of objective morals you enter into another quandry. It would seem that because you don't believe in natural law with respect to morality you have to contrive arguments against it. But when you do you can't propose an alternative which is relative/subjective because of obvious flaws in that alternative. In the end when pressed you seem to resort on morals being relative but also objective which on analysis prove a contradiction. And so it jumps from one contradiction to another.

"Rape" is being used as an example not because it is in the Old Testament (I believe it is but it is not central to the question for you to think it is) but because rape is universally (in the Western world at least) considered immoral and unjustifiable no matter what the circumstances.

And here we have the rehearsal of the "absolute morals" premise which you don't actually believe. Your argument is based on things you don't accept as true.

Well frankly Imaopml I'm bothering to read your posts properly and you aren't bothering to read mine (perhaps on purpose, perhaps out of laziness I don't know), so calling me lazy probably isn't the best idea :pac:

Try answering the "1or 2 which is it?" issue above would you?

As for God ordering people to do something which is against Gods law e.g. murder.. Her ios whatyou were shown several times about faith and reason.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

The Christian God is a rational God.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that we engage with the universe as it is, and God in terms of how He was revealed to me. Arguing about a-hypothetical-god-concept-that-differs-from-the-revealed-concept is pointless in terms of discussing Christianity.

Well no actually, the reality is you engage in reality as how you expect it to be.

You do not expect God to order you rape someone because you believe it is immoral. You believe it is immoral. Emphasis on the you. And you expect God to reflect your morality.

You can say that this isn't the case, that you don't personally judge that rape is immoral or moral that you merely listen to what Christianity says and conclude that rape is immoral based on that, and thus if God told you to rape someone you would know that this isn't God because it would contradict the New Testament.

But that is a fudge. Christianity is interpreted like everything else, and throughout the history of Christianity Christians have be re-evaluating interpretations of both the Old and New Testament.

If God appeared before you and told you something that contradicted an interpretation of Christianity that you held to but that made more moral sense to you you would happily embrace it.

You asked what my ultimate point is? It is that the absolutism, objectivism and ultimate authoritativism that Christians believe their religion provides not just them but the rest of the world as a guide, doesn't exist. It is a collective delusion, asserted so many times that people believe it.

I don't believe for one second that anyone here would rape anyone under the command of God. I don't believe any of you would accept an objective moral command that you personally (subjectively) believed was immoral or fundamental wrong.

Which brings us to the ultimate question, what is the point of therefore claim obedience to an objective moral standard.

The objective moral standard of the universe always matches the subjective moral standard of humanity at the time, and is retro-fitted onto previous versions of the objective moral stand.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think you guys will agree with this. I've tried through various methods to get you to ask yourselves these questions, and perhaps the level of hostility I faced was a sign that some of the cognitive dissonance was having an effect.

It was quite amusing that I was being constantly asked to prove that God commanded rape, despite me constantly explaining it was not central to the point.

Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things. But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

Which is interesting (Robin discussed this on the A&A forum with Newsite). Why do these things need to be justified in the first place? These things don't need to be justified or excused.

You all know that rape is wrong. You know that independently to reading the New or Old Testaments.

The suggestion therefore that God ordered anyone to rape anyone is either a) a lie or b) something that is being mis-interpreted or mis-understood for the context that it is in the Old Testament.

You all knew that before you asked me to justify where this is in the OT. You all knew that before you asked for the passages. You all knew that before you read the Bible at all.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Zombrex: I and others have asked you to clarify what you're arguing. You've consistently failed to do so.

Well in fairness Phil you asked me between two options and I said yes to both of them.

This didn't seem satisfying to you, but I think that was more to do with the flaw in your question than in my answers.

What I've been arguing has actually be clear throughout my posts.

The problem is not what I've been saying but the conclusions of what I've been arguing, you have had suspicions that these points of mine will lead to a conclusion that is "anti-Christianity" and thus are (rightly) weary of going there with me.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

The reality is that we engage with the universe as it is, and God in terms of how He was revealed to me. Arguing about a-hypothetical-god-concept-that-differs-from-the-revealed-concept is pointless in terms of discussing Christianity.

Well no actually, the reality is you engage in reality as how you expect it to be.

You do not expect God to order you rape someone because you believe it is immoral. You believe it is immoral. Emphasis on the you. And you expect God to reflect your morality.

You can say that this isn't the case, that you don't personally judge that rape is immoral or moral that you merely listen to what Christianity says and conclude that rape is immoral based on that, and thus if God told you to rape someone you would know that this isn't God because it would contradict the New Testament.

But that is a fudge. Christianity is interpreted like everything else, and throughout the history of Christianity Christians have be re-evaluating interpretations of both the Old and New Testament.

If God appeared before you and told you something that contradicted an interpretation of Christianity that you held to but that made more moral sense to you you would happily embrace it.

You asked what my ultimate point is? It is that the absolutism, objectivism and ultimate authoritativism that Christians believe their religion provides not just them but the rest of the world as a guide, doesn't exist. It is a collective delusion, asserted so many times that people believe it.

I don't believe for one second that anyone here would rape anyone under the command of God. I don't believe any of you would accept an objective moral command that you personally (subjectively) believed was immoral or fundamental wrong.

Which brings us to the ultimate question, what is the point of therefore claim obedience to an objective moral standard.

The objective moral standard of the universe always matches the subjective moral standard of humanity at the time, and is retro-fitted onto previous versions of the objective moral stand.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think you guys will agree with this. I've tried through various methods to get you to ask yourselves these questions, and perhaps the level of hostility I faced was a sign that some of the cognitive dissonance was having an effect.

It was quite amusing that I was being constantly asked to prove that God commanded rape, despite me constantly explaining it was not central to the point.

Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things. But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

Which is interesting (Robin discussed this on the A&A forum with Newsite). Why do these things need to be justified in the first place? These things don't need to be justified or excused.

You all know that rape is wrong. You know that independently to reading the New or Old Testaments.

The suggestion therefore that God ordered anyone to rape anyone is either a) a lie or b) something that is being mis-interpreted or mis-understood for the context that it is in the Old Testament.

You all knew that before you asked me to justify where this is in the OT. You all knew that before you asked for the passages. You all knew that before you read the Bible at all.

I asked you to clarify what you've been saying and you've consistently refused to do this. Unless you do this this is a grandiose waste of time for both parties.

Show us where God commands rape or retract. AKA be honest. I care that you're lying about Christianity and I find that disgraceful.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You have been answered on this different question by several people. I will repost my answer below. But you are switching the issue to a different question.

I'm not switching anything. You have mistakenly believed that I was working up to a conclusion that God orders Christians to rape people. I was never working up to this.

ISAW wrote: »

The question is about your recurrent theme of rape and murder which you have posted in several threads and when called on it you switch to a different argument.

Argument has always been the same. But in your mad dash to pigeon hole the argument you jumped the gun and wound up some where you shouldn't have.

ISAW wrote: »

You fail to answer the following and then appear in another thread here or in humanities or in A&A rehearsing your "rape and murder" argument.

I actually answered Phil's questions twice. It isn't my issue if you simply ignore the answers.

ISAW wrote: »

I do agree with you that there is another argument about whether absolute morals or natural law exists but again you seem to "pick and mix" according to whereever you enter into the debate.

No, that is just how it appears to you because you are so over egar to try and find problems with what I'm saying that you rush to conclusions I never made.

ISAW wrote: »

For example you appeal to the absolute of natural law below where you say it is universally accepted that rape is wrong.

No. Something being universally accepted is still subjective to human opinion. It is just that everyone agrees. That is not natural law. Natural law by definition is objective and not subjective to human opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

Elsewher you will happily say you don't believe in absolute morals which are always wrong

I don't say that. I say I do not believe in objective morals which are wrong independently to human opinion. I have no issue with absolute morality, I think lots of things are absolutely wrong. But that is just my opinion on them, as you like to say.

ISAW wrote: »

Then when faced with individuals not being dependable and the question of what is your source of objective morals you enter into another quandry.

The quandry is of your own making because you confuse absolute morals (morals applied absolutely) and objective morals (morals that are true or false independently to human opinion)

ISAW wrote: »

It would seem that because you don't believe in natural law with respect to morality you have to contrive arguments against it. But when you do you can't propose an alternative which is relative/subjective because of obvious flaws in that alternative.

Which flaw is that exactly? Because if it is the idea that all morals are "valid" if they are subjective then this isn't a flaw at all, it is category error (valid to whom?)

ISAW wrote: »

And here we have the rehearsal of the "absolute morals" premise which you don't actually believe. Your argument is based on things you don't accept as true.

No, I believe in absolute morals. You though seem to have a hard time telling the difference between absolute morals and objective morals.

I suspect that is because you don't really understand subjective morality, and cannot think how I feel I have the authority to say something is absolutely wrong while still thinking that is just my opinion. This comes back to the issue of the validity of a moral statement. Who am I to tell a 4th century BC farmer not to rape his wife. What authority to I have to tell him that he shouldn't do that.

I appreciate that when you view morality in terms of authority (something is moral if you have been told you can do it by a higher authority, something is immoral if you have been told you cannot do it by a higher authority) that it can be very difficult to view morality in other terms.

ISAW wrote: »

Try answering the "1or 2 which is it?" issue above would you?

I already have but if you like me to again the answer is Yes (but not that relevant) and Yes.

ISAW wrote: »

The Christian God is a rational God.

Ok, but since that is based on God's reasoning, not yours, it is some what irrelevant to the point.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no actually, the reality is you engage in reality as how you expect it to be.

Snip the rest where you jump off int the "subjective/relative/personally interpreted" morals argument. Christianity isn't based on relative morals. Not alone that but you are now using the "relative morals" oremise to defend you "absolute morals" arguements e.g. that rape is always wrong. - another contradiction!

If God appeared before you and told you something that contradicted an interpretation of Christianity that you held to but that made more moral sense to you you would happily embrace it.

This has been demonstrated as not being the case by several people. Above you have an example where that argument might hold for Islam but not for Christianity.

You asked what my ultimate point is? It is that the absolutism, objectivism and ultimate authoritativism that Christians believe their religion provides not just them but the rest of the world as a guide, doesn't exist. It is a collective delusion, asserted so many times that people believe it.

The mask slips!
And here you abandon the absolute immoral rape which you stated earlier and expose your real belief that there is not such thing and morality is relative. You are aware of the flaws in that premise too?

I don't believe for one second that anyone here would rape anyone under the command of God.

LOL! Why because if they did it would be wrong? always wrong? Absolutely?

I don't believe any of you would accept an objective moral command that you personally (subjectively) believed was immoral or fundamental wrong.

You have been shown that a Christian God wont do unreasonable things just as a man with a beard cant logically say "men with beards are liars"

The objective moral standard of the universe always matches the subjective moral standard of humanity at the time, and is retro-fitted onto previous versions of the objective moral stand.

And based on your relativist definition of morals ( not god's) anyone can justify raping people. Based on Christianity's people cant!

Now don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think you guys will agree with this. I've tried through various methods to get you to ask yourselves these questions, and perhaps the level of hostility I faced was a sign that some of the cognitive dissonance was having an effect.

Theonly cognitive dissonance is the constant logical contradictions you present. e.g. starting with the premise of rape always being wrong in order to prove that it isnt always wrong.

It was quite amusing that I was being constantly asked to prove that God commanded rape, despite me constantly explaining it was not central to the point.

No it was only central to the claim you made! We are aware of your relativist beliefs now but you made claims along the way to try to prove them. The claims din't stand up butyou restated them elsewhere and when pressed run away from explaining the contradiction.

Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things.

We care that you support your own claims and you now make a sweeping statement to try to re enter the argument and hop back off into the issue you have been unable to support.

But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

And you are being asked WHERE did God do this? Where is your evidence? You say you don't wish to go into it jump to another issue and then sneak back into the "God commanded rape and murder" issue.

You all know that rape is wrong. You know that independently to reading the New or Old Testaments.

But apparently you don't since above you claimn it is all relative to interpretation! Which is it?

The suggestion therefore that God ordered anyone to rape anyone is either a) a lie or b) something that is being mis-interpreted or mis-understood for the context that it is in the Old Testament.

You all knew that before you asked me to justify where this is in the OT. You all knew that before you asked for the passages. You all knew that before you read the Bible at all.

YOU are3 the one making the claims! Stop trying to shift it onto others shoulders. Supply evidence or admit you dont have it and shut up already!

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I asked you to clarify what you've been saying and you've consistently refused to do this. Unless you do this this is a grandiose waste of time for both parties.

Well no phil, what you have asked me to do is to fall into the stereotype you hope I would be where I'm arguing that God commands Christians to rape people.

That would be great because you have an answer for that. Nice. Easy.

Of course since that isn't what I'm arguing it is a lot more difficult. But then who ever said it was going to be easy. :pac:

philologos wrote: »

Show us where God commands rape or retract. AKA be honest. I care that you're lying about Christianity and I find that disgraceful.

That is not what you care about. If you did care about that you would have gone back to the discussion I was having with PDN which I already linked to and read through the posts detailing what I believe is rape in the Old Testament.

What you actually care about is avoiding what I'm actually discussing with this little goose chase of trying to make out that I'm saying God orders Christians to rape people. But that is easy, you already have an answer for that. It doesn't involve thinking about your beliefs or the basis of your beliefs.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Snip the rest where you jump off int the "subjective/relative/personally interpreted" morals argument. Christianity isn't based on relative morals.

That is what you think. And that is what my questions and points have been getting you to challenge.

Again I don't really expect you at first to agree. But hopefully it will sow a seed in your mind that will at least get you to think and challenge your own beliefs and pre-conceptions about that belief.

This is after all the Atheism/Existence of God Debates thread.

ISAW wrote: »

This has been demonstrated as not being the case by several people. Above you have an example where that argument might hold for Islam but not for Christianity.

Can you give an example of where this was demonstrated by several people?

ISAW wrote: »

The mask slips!

There was never any mask, you just didn't follow what I was saying.

ISAW wrote: »

And here you abandon the absolute immoral rape which you stated earlier and expose your real belief that there is not such thing and morality is relative. You are aware of the flaws in that premise too?

I'm aware that the idea is quite discomforting to you, yes. And that this is a reason why something like Christianity, which claims objectivism, is comforting. But only up to a point.

The idea that God would order or command you to do something you believe is absolutely immoral, is not comforting or appealing. Which leads to the cognitive disodence I mentioned earlier.

The idea of an objective morality is only appealing when it is falls in line with our own subjective morality. When it doesn't the concept is terrifying, to the point where we reject it completely.

ISAW wrote: »

LOL! Why because if they did it would be wrong? always wrong? Absolutely?

As far as we are all concerned, yes. That is your opinion, it is my opinion. We like to think it is God's opinion as well. The idea that it wouldn't be is very very unappealing to us.

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown that a Christian God wont do unreasonable things just as a man with a beard cant logically say "men with beards are liars"

And you have been shown that God will do what he says is reasonable, not what you say is reasonable.

I would say it is not reasonable to destroy all men women and children in Cannan. But you would say that God decides what is reasonable and not reasonable.

ISAW wrote: »

Theonly cognitive dissonance is the constant logical contradictions you present. e.g. starting with the premise of rape always being wrong in order to prove that it isnt always wrong.

That wasn't what I was trying to prove. If you think that you haven't been paying attention. I don't blame you, what I'm trying to get you to think about is far more unappealing that what you would like to pretend I'm saying.

ISAW wrote: »

And you are being asked WHERE did God do this? Where is your evidence? You say you don't wish to go into it jump to another issue and then sneak back into the "God commanded rape and murder" issue.

I've already explained where I believe God commanded the Israelites to take wives in forced marriages which involve rape. You didn't seem that interested in that discussion when it was happening, but if you wish to go back to the posts to add something new be my question.

Since it is not relevant to this discussion I'll leave you to decide whether you want to continue on that previous discussion or not.

ISAW wrote: »

But apparently you don't since above you claimn it is all relative to interpretation! Which is it?

It is not relative to interpretation. You would reject any interpretation that required you to rape someone, even if that was the objectively right interpretation.

So what is the point of appeals to objective morality?

ISAW wrote: »

YOU are3 the one making the claims! Stop trying to shift it onto others shoulders. Supply evidence or admit you dont have it and shut up already!

I have been. You just don't like what I'm saying. :P

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Well no phil, what you have asked me to do is to fall into the stereotype you hope I would be where I'm arguing that God commands Christians to rape people.

That would be great because you have an answer for that. Nice. Easy.

Of course since that isn't what I'm arguing it is a lot more difficult. But then who ever said it was going to be easy. :pac:



That is not what you care about. If you did care about that you would have gone back to the discussion I was having with PDN which I already linked to and read through the posts detailing what I believe is rape in the Old Testament.

What you actually care about is avoiding what I'm actually discussing with this little goose chase of trying to make out that I'm saying God orders Christians to rape people. But that is easy, you already have an answer for that. It doesn't involve thinking about your beliefs or the basis of your beliefs.

What are you arguing? Do you even know yourself?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not switching anything. You have mistakenly believed that I was working up to a conclusion that God orders Christians to rape people. I was never working up to this.

Where did i say you were? what i said was you claimed it?
Do you now either
1. deny you claimed it or
2. withdraw that claim and admit it was unsupported ?

I actually answered Phil's questions twice. It isn't my issue if you simply ignore the answers.

No, that is just how it appears to you because you are so over egar to try and find problems with what I'm saying that you rush to conclusions I never made.

P: God orders Christians to rape people.
Do you now either
1. deny you claimed it or
2. withdraw that claim and admit it was unsupported ?

No. Something being universally accepted is still subjective to human opinion. It is just that everyone agrees. That is not natural law. Natural law by definition is objective and not subjective to human opinion.

So if everyone agreed that for example sex with a child is okay would that mean it is okay? Or would it still be wrong in spite of laws being passed saying it was acceptable or laws forbidding it being removed? Either rape is wrong or it isn't. Passing a law which everyone agrees to does not necessarily make things wrong. The Germans passedlaws against Jews. Did that mean those laws made it right to persecute Jews?

I don't say that. I say I do not believe in objective morals which are wrong independently to human opinion.

So was it accept for the Jews to be persecuted?

I have no issue with absolute morality, I think lots of things are absolutely wrong. But that is just my opinion on them, as you like to say.

So whether persecuting Jews is wrong is just your opinion. It isn't actually wrong it is just an opinion?

The quandry is of your own making because you confuse absolute morals (morals applied absolutely) and objective morals (morals that are true or false independently to human opinion)

The quandry is "Is rape/murder" wrong or is that only an opinion or collective opinion?

No, I believe in absolute morals. You though seem to have a hard time telling the difference between absolute morals and objective morals.

Is rape then always wrong? Does it depend on a whole society of peroples subjective opinion or not? If the society believe persecuting Jews is okay are they wrong?

Can you list for me three things which are objectively wrong or true but not absolutely wrong and another three which are absolutely wrong but not objectively wrong/true?

Ok, but since that is based on God's reasoning, not yours, it is some what irrelevant to the point.

It is totally relevant if the basis of you argument is a commandment by God which would contradict reason.

Edit: your most recent rehearsal message 912

Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things. But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

Edit2 And it goes back years. here at the very time the Pope gave the lecture on Faith and Reson atRegensberg to which I referred:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52069244&postcount=27

Being a supporter of a literal interpretation of the Bible you are in a perfect postion to understand this form of reasoning. Judging by discussions on other threads you seem to support actions by either God or his followers described in the Bible that I would consider as being acts of horrific genocide. You some how rationalise these actions as actually being Gods will and not evil at all

philologos

Apparently Zombrex knows more about what I care about than I do.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Apparently Zombrex knows more about what I care about than I do.

The posts where myself and PDN discussed Deuteronomy, forced marriage and (in my opinion) rape are still available for anyone to read and comment on (and I provided a link to them already), if you wish.

Though like I said I suspect you don't.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Where did i say you were? what i said was you claimed it?
Do you now either
1. deny you claimed it or
2. withdraw that claim and admit it was unsupported ?

I deny I claimed it. You know this because I already pointed out to you that you cannot provide a single quote from where I claimed it. You responded to this that it was what I was suggesting or working up to. It wasn't.

ISAW wrote: »

So if everyone agreed that for example sex with a child is okay would that mean it is okay?

To them yes. Not to me, though I guess I'm included in the "everyone", though I'm not sure what would change my mind.

If God said that sex with a child was okay, but everyone disagreed, would that mean it was okay?

ISAW wrote: »

The Germans passedlaws against Jews. Did that mean those laws made it right to persecute Jews?

No. I think it was absolutely wrong to persecute the Jews.

God commanded the Israelites to kill women and children in the cities they captured. Does that mean it was right for the Israelites to kill women and children in the cities they captured?

See at the end of the day the only think that ever matters to someone is what they personally believe. I believe it was wrong for the Nazi's to kill Jews and I don't care what anyone else thinks. I believe it was wrong for the Israelites to kill women and child, and I don't care what anyone else thinks (including God).

You think exactly the same way, you just don't realize it. You like the confort of thinking that they aren't really your opinions on morality, but they are in fact the correct objective standards of the universe as represented by God. This gives you more confidence in your beliefs.

But of course you would utterly reject any objective standard that contadicts with you own beliefs.

Or put it another way, if God had come down from heaven and said "I support the Nazis", you still would have though it was wrong and fought against the Nazis.

ISAW wrote: »

So whether persecuting Jews is wrong is just your opinion. It isn't actually wrong it is just an opinion?

It is actually wrong, that is my opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

The quandry is "Is rape/murder" wrong or is that only an opinion or collective opinion?

It is my opinion that rape and murder are wrong. It is also your opinion. Which is why the suggestion that God might contradict your opinion causes such annoyance on this forum.

You want God to reflect your opinion, not the other way around.

ISAW wrote: »

Is rape then always wrong? Does it depend on a whole society of peroples subjective opinion or not? If the society believe persecuting Jews is okay are they wrong?

My opinion is that rape is always wrong. My opinion will obviously be shaped by ideas from society but it is not dependent on the shared opinion of society. My opinion is that persecuting the Jews was wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

Can you list for me three things which are objectively wrong or true but not absolutely wrong and another three which are absolutely wrong but not objectively wrong/true?

I don't believe in objective morality, so I cannot list those things. I can list things that I think are absolutely wrong

- Rape
- Torture
- Punishment of children for parents crimes.

God and I disagree with the 3rd one.

Can you list some objective morals (since you do believe in it) that you personally think are immoral, but that you recognize you are wrong about.

ISAW wrote: »

It is totally relevant if the basis of you argument is a commandment by God which would contradict reason.

It contradicts your reason. But then who are you to say that God must adhere to your reason.

I think the entire New Testament is unreasonable, but then who am I to tell God what is or isn't reasonable (as you guys constantly remind me).

Soul Winner

Zombrex wrote: »

and (in my opinion) rape

Thanks for clearing that up for us :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up for us :rolleyes:

Was there any doubt?

I suspect if there was it was because, as someone typical on this forum, a lot of time is spent inventing what the atheist must be saying, and not a lot of time reading what he was.

For a group of people who have access to the divine perfect plan of the creator of the universe you guys really do come off as very insecure and defensive about challenges to your beliefs.

No offence :P

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

I deny I claimed it. You know this because I already pointed out to you that you cannot provide a single quote from where I claimed it.

Ther are two clear examples just four or so messages above above where I quote you you stating:

the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

and one from long ago ( from the time when the Pope stated the reference I supplied on "faith and reason" ) in which you stated

actions by either God or his followers described in the Bible that I would consider as being acts of horrific genocide.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75834729&postcount=649

I can't bear the notion of someone telling me a god who commands that women be executed if they are not virgins on their wedding night, or commands that homosexuals be stoned to death, is 'perfect'
...
Try women who are raped in a town. Yes your 'perfect' God said that they should be executed by stoning because will they should have called out shouldn't they?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63014718&postcount=51

While describing (and justifying) genocide, rape, and slavery.

So no that isn't really the point Jakkass, you aren't going to find much support on this forum for the idea that the Bible has "something to say" beyond justifying the war crimes of the Hebrew armies (God told us to go pillage your lands, sorry about that!), nor is freedom of religion a justification to expose children to something violent, any more than the Waco cult were justified in showing very violent movies to their children to prepare them for the war they were expecting.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53002995&postcount=5175

The Bible never says "rape", the Bible never says "sex"

"Lie with" is a how the Bible says sex. There is nothing here that would suggest that God in any way made these women want to have sex with these people.

I find it interesting thought that the idea that God would allow these women to be raped disturbs you, so you are searching for a way for it not to be rape. Does the idea that God would make an infant so sick that he died not equally disturb you?
...
Please tell me what part of the passage suggests that the wives were willing participants with being made to have sex in broad day light in front of their husband?

There is ample evidence that you have clearly claimed the God of the Bible endorsed rape and Christians follow a book which endorse4s it. whenever you are called on it you hop off to something else. Here you try a different tactic. Deny you claimed it.

Do you still deny you claimed it?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Ther are two clear examples just four or so messages above above where I quote you you stating:

Can you point out the "Christians" bit in that quote (which was referring to the Old Testament)

ISAW wrote: »

and one from long ago ( from the time when the Pope stated the reference I supplied on "faith and reason" ) in which you stated

Is there even any doubt that God ordered the Israelites to carry out genocide? Again can you point out the Christians bit in that quote, since you are claiming that I said God ordered Christians to rape people.

If you want to change that to saying God ordered the Israelites to rape people then I've no problem saying I believe that.

ISAW wrote: »

There is ample evidence that you have clearly claimed the God of the Bible endorsed rape and Christians follow a book which endorse4s it.

Both those things are true, I do believe God endorsed rape and I believe that Christians hold the Old Testament to be the word of God.

Can you point out the quote where I said I believe God ordered Christians to rape people?

ISAW wrote: »

Do you still deny you claimed it?

I certainly do. I never claimed that God ordered Christians to rape anyone. Can you provide a quote demonstrating otherwise?

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Was there any doubt?
...

No offence :P

Offence taken

Your words:

the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.

You clearly say this in various discussions. I want you on the record here saying that you never claimed it. I now have that. So again you contradict yourself. You did claim it and you offend the belief of others that brought this to your attention by claiming they misunderstand your clear words and your clear record in claiming it - for years, sometimes in quite an offensive manner.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You clearly say this in various discussions. I want you on the record here saying that you never claimed it.

Of course I claimed, I have always maintained that God ordered rape in the Old Testament.

You stated that I claimed that God ordered CHRISTIANS to rape people. I didn't (if he did I suspect none of you would be Christians).

You seem utterly unable to demonstrate otherwise so instead you are derailing this thread with this nonsense, posts about rape in the Old Testament hundreds of years before there was a Christianity for God to order anything to them.

As I seem to have to tell you ever few weeks on Boards.ie, it is not my fault you read my posts wrong ISAW. Slow down, stop racing to find a got-cha to prove how evil I am, and take the time to read my posts in an unbiased fashion.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you point out the "Christians" bit in that quote (which was referring to the Old Testament)

Trying to get off the hook?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50715030&postcount=27

Unfortunately "Christians" can find a justification in the Bible to do pretty much anything they want to do, from starting wars to stringing up homosexuals to bombing an abortion clinic, in exactly the same way a commited Muslim can find a passage in the Quaran to justify blowing up a bus full of children.

The idea that Christianity is in some way a safer religion because Jesus didn't say "go have a holy war" is rather weak in my view, and ignores why religious violence, from raping women, to killing homosexuals, to blow up buildings, occurs in the first place.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52417335&postcount=9

Christian - No, you must experience it for yourself, you must accept Jesus into your life and Jesus will guide you.

Non-believer - So, I should accept a god despite the fact that I find him to be seriously morally questionable because you assure me that once I do accept this god, it will be explained to me why he isn't morally questionable, despite the fact that you can't tell me right now why he isn't morally questionable, despite the glaring passages in the Bible describing rape and murder.
...

When I was a teenager and thinking about all this stuff properly for the first time one of the reasons I rejected of idea of worshipping the Judeo/Christian God that Irish society was full of was I read the Bible. Not the fluffy children bible I had been given growing up by my Catholic father, but the proper Bible.

I read the passages about war, the passages about bloodshed, the passages about rape and slavery. And I read how God commanded that these things happen. And long before I rejected the concept of God out right and became an atheist, I rejected the idea of worshipping the god of the Old Testament.

I would not follow or worship a God that commands these things, even if he did exist.

clearly above you are discussion Christians and rape and genocide endorsed by the same God. The question isn't whether it is endorsed or not butwhether you claimed that the Bible or Christians or God endoeces rape and murder.
You never made those claims????
The above quotes seem to contradict that!

If you want to change that to saying God ordered the Israelites to rape people then I've no problem saying I believe that.

Both those things are true, I do believe God endorsed rape and I believe that Christians hold the Old Testament to be the word of God.

Okay so now you admit
1. The Judaeo/Christian God endorsed rape and murder according to the Bible.

So you don't deny that?

Now where is your evidence for it?

Edit:

In message 909 you say:

"Rape" is being used as an example not because it is in the Old Testament (I believe it is but it is not central to the question for you to think it is) but because rape is universally (in the Western world at least) considered immoral and unjustifiable no matter what the circumstances.

Now the whole point you are making to Christians seems to hinge on the idea of

What if God told you to do something immoral? e.g. rape
The point about such a commandment being against reason has been made to you i.e god would not do that.
When this is pointed out to you you claim to Christians that the Bible shows that God does do that.

PDN asked you to show where and he is still waiting for your answer.

Others have pointed out to you that it is pointless to argue about a "what if" God who is not a christian God.

Now you either claim that this God that commands rape is a christian god or hs isnt.
Which is it?

If he isn't then there is no purpose in debating it as part of Christianity.
If he is -and you have just denied claiming that several times - how do you know?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Trying to get off the hook?

No, trying to get you to state where I said God claimed Christians should rape people.

Can I take it from the fact that you have gone back to a post from 2006 (that still doesn't support your claim) that you don't have anything to back this up?

ISAW wrote: »

clearly above you are discussion Christians and rape and genocide endorsed by the same God.

Yes. You do believe that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same God, correct?

ISAW wrote: »

The question isn't whether it is endorsed or not butwhether you claimed that the Bible or Christians or God endoeces rape and murder.

No, that isn't the question. The question is where did I claim that God commands Christians to rape people.

ISAW wrote: »

You never made those claims????

I've claimed many many many times that God commanded the Israelites to rape and kill people.

ISAW wrote: »

Okay so now you admit
1. The Judaeo/Christian God endorsed rape and murder according to the Bible.

Admit it? That was my original claim. He did endorse rape and killing (posters like PDN even agree with the killing bit, just not the rape bit)

ISAW wrote: »

Now where is your evidence for it?

The Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 20:
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.